In those cases where the utility has only additional cost, and no benefit, isn't what you say in my quote already what happens, unless it is balanced by something else? But as I said, the case where someone provides energy during the day and consumes during the night, should be a value to the power plant, and be reflected in what the power plant charges to the utility or otherwise indirectly adds value to the system. Furthermore, the "buy" prices could slightly differ from the "sell" prices, to cover transmission cost, except in so far as they include subsidies (which they might very well do).
The special case where someone might consume as much during the day as is consumed by the same customer *during the same* TOU bracket, I would expect that to be so rare as not to matter, but if it did rise to the scale where it matters, then of course the utility needs to be allowed to recover that cost either elsewhere or there. In general, it seems to me, that utilities here need to think on a larger scale, and accept that the rate structure intends to encourage on one side and discourage on another side.
As I understand it, the arguments you are making are mostly valid in themselves, and should be quantified and presented to those who decide on the rate structure, but not to individual customers (who do not have the means to defend their interest adequately, as their is no functioning market with competition, and as the external costs for non-renewables are not adequately represented otherwise).